- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:29:16 +0800
- To: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>
(12/05/15 7:17), Mathew Marquis wrote: > It’s worth noting that a practical polyfill may not be possible when using `img set`, for reasons detailed at length elsewhere: > http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-images-how-they-almost-worked-and-what-we-need/ > http://www.netmagazine.com/features/state-responsive-images > > Long story short: attempting to write a polyfill for `img set` leaves us in the exact situation we were in while trying to solve the issue of responsive images strictly on the front-end. We would be saddling users with a redundant download—first for the original src, then for the appropriately-sized source if needed. > > Where the new element would be all but ignored by existing browsers, efficient polyfills become possible. In fact, two `picture` polyfills exist today: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Adaptive_images#Functional_Polyfills Sorry but I don't understand why <noscript> as used around <img> by these polyfills listed can't be used along <img srcset>. If your point is that some Web developers will not cater for NoScript users and chose to include <img> in <picture>, I think those authors can use <img srcset> without @src too (if I understand correctly). Cheers, Kenny
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 03:29:55 UTC